Mazda CX-5 FWD Pro v. Honda CR-V 1.6 V

[JJJ0922]

CX9 FC is around 4-5 km/L for daily city driving

Our CX9 right now is only being used on weekends and since there’s less traffic and puro highway, we get an FC of 6-7

Not the most practical car IMHO but it’s really nice


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

Yeah, really really pretty car : )

Too bad I have to consider the FC since my daily drive to work passes areas with congested roads therefore very slow moving.

[kriscan84]

Hello,
Newbie here. I was just browsing a comparison some kind of these cars. Gladly I found this thread. I hope sooner or later, I got some best decision from here. Brilliant ideas guys! Thank you.

[hardwang]

Everyone seem to keep forgetting the new Rav4 😂

Honestly it’s probably the best choice when it comes to the base model.

[April_Ryan]

Update: I ended up with the Subaru XV (eyesight model)

[Walter]

Update: I ended up with the Subaru XV (eyesight model)

That's a good choice ... Does the Subaru XV Eyesight model have rear cross-traffic alert? ... Give us an update when you decide have tint installed on the windshield ...

[lowslowbenz]

Update: I ended up with the Subaru XV (eyesight model)

How is the ownership experience panning out?

Subaru BGC still has a 2018 Forester available in their showroom, less 300K. In blue.

[jut703]

Was having my car serviced and decided to check out the RAV4 in the adjacent showroom. The 1.63M base model was on display. Put simply, its only advantage vs the similarly priced CRV 2.0S is that it has a bigger engine. Everything else, the CRV has the advantage.

I've driven the previous gen RAV4 with the 2.5L 2AR-FE with 180 hp. I was expecting significantly better performance vs the other 2.0L crossovers but it was really more of the same. Maybe a bit more torque in the low end but mid range was flat. Certainly did not feel like a 25 hp advantage.

Now of course this new RAV4 has a more powerful A25A-FKS engine so things might be different this time around, but I'm sure it still doesn't come close to the useable performance of a 2.0 CRDi like the CX5 diesel or the Korean crossovers.

But like I said, after the engine, the rest of the offering of this base RAV4 is quite sad for a 1.6M car:
- no leather seats/steering/shift knob, sides
- no HID
- small 17" rims
- small local HU
- no cruise control
- no push button ignition
- no auto climate control



It looks very bare unlike the CX5, Forester, or CRV which have a decent amount of kit at that price range.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Egan101]

It looks very bare unlike the CX5, Forester, or CRV which have a decent amount of kit at that price range.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Baka talunin pa nung Tucson 2.0L (gas) FWD priced at 1.378M sa features. However, at around 1.6M, you are already looking at the Tucson 2.0L Diesel.

[Wh1stl3r]

Wow. That base Rav4 makes our 1.6V CR-V look like a step up. No doubt a good car from Toyota but man, they're really
pushing the limits of pricing.

[hardwang]

Was having my car serviced and decided to check out the RAV4 in the adjacent showroom. The 1.63M base model was on display. Put simply, its only advantage vs the similarly priced CRV 2.0S is that it has a bigger engine. Everything else, the CRV has the advantage.

I've driven the previous gen RAV4 with the 2.5L 2AR-FE with 180 hp. I was expecting significantly better performance vs the other 2.0L crossovers but it was really more of the same. Maybe a bit more torque in the low end but mid range was flat. Certainly did not feel like a 25 hp advantage.

Now of course this new RAV4 has a more powerful A25A-FKS engine so things might be different this time around, but I'm sure it still doesn't come close to the useable performance of a 2.0 CRDi like the CX5 diesel or the Korean crossovers.

But like I said, after the engine, the rest of the offering of this base RAV4 is quite sad for a 1.6M car:
- no leather seats/steering/shift knob, sides
- no HID
- small 17" rims
- small local HU
- no cruise control
- no push button ignition
- no auto climate control



It looks very bare unlike the CX5, Forester, or CRV which have a decent amount of kit at that price range.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Again, those are features which are nice and makes you feel your purchase is “sulit” but one can live without them, well maybe except the HID... but push button start? 😂

Everyone needs to look at the bigger picture. First and foremost, no CVT. Second, direct and port injection. These things may not sound exciting to those looking for “features” but these are the most important advantages of the Rav4 in my opinion.

[jut703]

Again, those are features which are nice and makes you feel your purchase is “sulit” but one can live without them, well maybe except the HID... but push button start? [emoji23]

Everyone needs to look at the bigger picture. First and foremost, no CVT. Second, direct and port injection. These things may not sound exciting to those looking for “features” but these are the most important advantages of the Rav4 in my opinion.

Different strokes for different folks. Just as you say that you can live without creature comforts, I'm sure many people will say that they can live without a 2.5L 200 hp engine and will prefer a feature-packed car. Otherwise they would've gone for something basic like a Rush.

I'm willing to bet that the RAV4 won't sell well because people don't care about direction injection and will instead be dissuaded by the lack of creature comforts for the price you pay.

If you want a RAV4, noone is stopping you from buying. Just don't expect that everyone's value system is the same as yours.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[hardwang]

Different strokes for different folks. Just as you say that you can live without creature comforts, I'm sure many people will say that they can live without a 2.5L 200 hp engine and will prefer a feature-packed car. Otherwise they would've gone for something basic like a Rush.

I'm willing to bet that the RAV4 won't sell well because people don't care about direction injection and will instead be dissuaded by the lack of creature comforts for the price you pay.

If you want a RAV4, noone is stopping you from buying. Just don't expect that everyone's value system is the same as yours.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Yes it is easy to be blinded by features nowadays, it’s how they hook customers. Impress them in the showroom... but its also important not to forget the foundation of a vehicle.

Performance of the new Rav4 seemed to have improved over the old one.
2019 Toyota RAV4 AWD : Acceleration test in Sport's mode! ! | 0-60 Mph / 0-100 Km/h - YouTube

[jut703]

Yes it is easy to be blinded by features nowadays, it’s how they hook customers. Impress them in the showroom... but its also important not to forget the foundation of a vehicle.

Performance of the new Rav4 seemed to have improved over the old one.
2019 Toyota RAV4 AWD : Acceleration test in Sport's mode! ! | 0-60 Mph / 0-100 Km/h - YouTube

It's not being "blinded", yun naman talaga hinahanap nila - features. Time and time again we've seen that performance or acceleration is not a key purchase factor for most car buyers.

And between a bare CRV with an efficient diesel engine vs a bare RAV 4 with a powerful gas engine, wanna bet which one will sell more?

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[jut703]

To compare between the current set of gas-fed entry level CUVs, my take would be:

RAV4 - great engine, nothing else
Forester - cheapest AWD in the market (along with the XV), humongous space
CX5 - still the best driver's car among the crop, but a bit cramped
CRV - class-leading ride comfort and space, good all rounder
Tucson - cheapest compact CUV, but bare and tighter than the rest

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[diehard]

To compare between the current set of gas-fed entry level CUVs, my take would be:

RAV4 - great engine, nothing else
Forester - cheapest AWD in the market (along with the XV), humongous space
CX5 - still the best driver's car among the crop, but a bit cramped
CRV - class-leading ride comfort and space, good all rounder
Tucson - cheapest compact CUV, but bare and tighter than the rest

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Was thinking of replacing my Camry 2.5 V with the all new RAV4. However, the lack of features coupled with the high asking price dissuaded me from pushing through. As for the new dual injection engine, reviews abroad have said it is loud and coarse sounding during acceleration. This drawback should be addressed in future iterations. Having a regular torque converter AT assures more familiar shift feel but not long term reliability. My 2003 Accord’s AT failed at 80k+ km...the 9 speed ZF tranny in my diesel CRV has also had its share of negative feedback in both Honda other applications (hoping for the best).

Hoping VW will bring in the Tiguan L from China to replace the obsolete Tiguan they are currently selling here.

[yapoy86]

Was thinking of replacing my Camry 2.5 V with the all new RAV4. However, the lack of features coupled with the high asking price dissuaded me from pushing through. As for the new dual injection engine, reviews abroad have said it is loud and coarse sounding during acceleration. This drawback should be addressed in future iterations. Having a regular torque converter AT assures more familiar shift feel but not long term reliability. My 2008 Accord’s AT failed at 80k+ km...the 9 speed ZF tranny in my diesel CRV has also had its share of negative feedback in both Honda other applications (hoping for the best).

Hoping VW will bring in the Tiguan L from China to replace the obsolete Tiguan they are currently selling here.

The regular torque converter AT is more reliable than CVT and DCT transmission. New technology also addressed the weak points of the cvt to the point they revert back to the trusted torque converter. Your AT failed because its a honda.. toyota AT is one of the most reliable transmission out in the market

[hardwang]

The regular torque converter AT is more reliable than CVT and DCT transmission. New technology also addressed the weak points of the cvt to the point they revert back to the trusted torque converter. Your AT failed because its a honda.. toyota AT is one of the most reliable transmission out in the market

That’s true. Honda AT transmissions are not as robust as Toyota. But I owned a Honda City with 5 speed automatic before, never had any problems. Of course I religiously change my ATF every 3 years. Those with transmission issues you gotta ask, how much care did they actually put with maintaining their transmission?

[diehard]

ThatÂ’s true. Honda AT transmissions are not as robust as Toyota. But I owned a Honda City with 5 speed automatic before, never had any problems. Of course I religiously change my ATF every 3 years. Those with transmission issues you gotta ask, how much care did they actually put with maintaining their transmission?

Every manufacturer has their share of AT issues, whether it be CVT, DCT or newer torque converter ATs w/ 8 or more gears. That said, Aisin, which makes Toyota trannys, has a sterling reputation for bullet proof engineering, so chances are good (but not guaranteed) that the Toyota 8-speed AT will be trouble free.

[jut703]

When saying thay a particular brand's transmission is not as durable as another's, what data point do you use? Anecdotal evidence?

So far, the only widespread transmission issues I'm seeing are those from the Cedia Lancer, GD Jazz/City, and all Ford DCTs. These are the ones with more than just one or two samples of failures.

And even with these shoddy transmissions, it doesn't mean that all Mitsubishi, Honda, and Ford transmissions are bad.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[dr. d]

i once bought a ten year old cedia lancer with cvt. i used it for several years.
the cvt performed fine.
but i did not agree with its gas-gargling appetite, and got rid of it after some time.